Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Smacking down moralistic moral equivalency
A little history lesson (here) about ending WWII for Jon Stewart.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Some Good blogs
-
The next Holder outrage1 day ago
-
Kat O’ Nine Tales1 day ago
-
Missed the boat vote1 week ago
-
Oh how quickly things "Change"9 months ago
Categories
- 2nd Amendment (2)
- a couple things (3)
- blogging (1)
- Bush Derangement Syndrome (39)
- Economics (31)
- Education (19)
- Election 2008 (361)
- elections (103)
- Energy (3)
- Environmentalism (39)
- faith (5)
- Federalism (1)
- Foreign Policy (7)
- Fred Thompson (35)
- GWOT (130)
- healthcare (14)
- immigration (8)
- Law and the Courts (105)
- Liberals and Democrats (99)
- Marriage and family (7)
- media (29)
- Military and Defense (1)
- Obama (61)
- parenting and family (7)
- Race (26)
- Religious Conservatism (95)
- Sanctity of Life (81)
- Sarah Palin (19)
- science denying (3)
- Sexuality (50)
- Sports/Pop Culture (51)
- the Media (17)
- The Tennessee Plan (11)
People are talking . . .
15 comments:
Stewart is wrong. So what? Who cares if Stewart is wrong, what Pelosi knew, it's all smoke and mirrors that are being used to obscure the facts. The Bush Administration tortured for political purposes and war crimes were committed. Thats the bottom line here.
For political purposes? That's one I hadn't heard before?
And what "facts" are being obscured? Pelosi (and Stewart) are the ones who raised the subject.
Yes, they tortured for political purposes, not as they said, "to protect Americans".
You porbably wouldn't have seen this at CNS or FoxNews.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
Well, so much for "'torture' is a waste of time because it doesn't produce reliable information." Those "torture victims" really bore up well under the pressure, huh?
But no, I didn't see that story at CNS or FoxNews . . . because I don't frequent those sites.
Jihadists and America haters are on the same team. There are ALL KINDS of connections between terrorist-harboring Iraq and the Jihad. Iraq was just chapter two of the GWOT.
Quite the contrary. Obviously, anything 'confessed to' during the torture was not verifiable.
Abu Zubaydah confessed that Iraq and al-Qaeda had an operational relationship. Obviously, everything he said was proven false. The torture of Zubaydah and KSM produced no actionable intelligence.
Fact.
"Quite the contrary."
Actually, not. You claim that "torture" doesn't produce credible intelligence because . . . people will say whatever you want them to say. Well, according to the op/ed, er, article at McClatchy, they kept "torturing" these people to get them to say something that they (apparently) didn't ever say. So much for "'torture' is a waste of time because it doesn't produce reliable information."
Thanks for visiting, "Anonymous."
Wrong again, the tortured individuals said everything and anything, but nothing true or verifiable. Remember, by this time the US had gone to war on the basis of false intelligence, putting stock in single sources like the infamous 'Curveball' source and were a bit more wary after the WMD debacle.
You may know the interrogator that successfully hunted down al Zarqawi got the info on him through conventional means and found that of the 1000 interrogations he supervised, torture was ineffective in producing reliable info.
Just the fact that Bush/Cheney tortured to provide a justification of the war that had already been launched is clearly a war crime.
You quote from the Bible and condone torture. A classic characteristic of today's new Republicanism and a classic example of why the GOP is dying.
So much for your moral relativism.Retired Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the U.S. investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, told Britain's Daily Telegraph in an article published Wednesday that he agreed with Obama's decision not to release the pictures.
"The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."
One photo reportedly showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner and another was said to show a male translator raping a male detainee, the Telegraph reported.
This is what Ned Williams condones. Such a good Christian.
Yep . . . you got me PEGGED, "anonymous"!!
And one more thing, remember the documents that Cheney says proves torture effectiveness that Obama is supposedly with holding? Turns out they don't prove squat according to all that have seen them.
. . . and one more thing . . . !!!!!!!
Jon Stewart is a moralistic moral equivalenc-ing bozo.
Thanks for visiting, "Anonymous"!
Bush's top Iraq General, David Petraeus admitted today in an interview on Fox News that the US violated the Geneva Conventions:
"When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those," Gen. Petraeus, Fox News - 5/29/09.War crimes were committed. The commander has confessed. The question remains as to whether the criminals will be prosecuted.
Here's a new line for your bio:
Mr. Ned Williams, a "pro-life" Christian lawyer who stands in defense of war criminals and advocates the torturing of Muslims.
Faux News? Ha! Everyone knows what they say isn't true.
Nonetheless, folks need to listen to the comments themselves to assess their import.(Here)
Nonetheless, I think that it is wise to follow the Army Field Manual, and--like Sen. Chuck Schumer, I think that higher levels of pressure on certain suspects under certain circumstances, isn't evil or a crime.
Thanks for stopping by, "Anonymous"!!
Thanks for linking the video. General Petraeus admits the Bush administration committed war crimes at 3:13 of the video. Further, he admirably tells us to move forward and live our values and according to agreements we've made, refering to the righful criticism Bush has received for violating the Geneva Conventions.
The Army Field Manual doesn't contain violations of the Geneva Conventions. You think that higher level of pressure on certain suspects under certain circumstances isn't evil or a crime?
Does that include: "sexually explicit acts, including a uniformed soldier receiving oral sex from a female prisoner, a government contractor engaged in an act of sodomy with a male prisoner and scenes of forced masturbation, forced exhibition and penetration involving phosphorous sticks and brooms." ??
(reports of the most recent withheld photos).
How about torture by electrocution??
If a Christian Republican authorizes torture to be done on a Muslim, then it's not "evil or a crime."??
This is beyond hypocritical. Worse than unAmerican. This type of reasoning must include a heavy level of fear, ignorance, and denial. These are clearly the principles of Ned Williams and many in the religious right "culture of life."
Yep! You got it . . . and you're obviously more moral than me, "Anonymous."
But no more comments for you, weasel.
Post a Comment